Can appellate courts address moot issues under the public interest exception? In re C.D. Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in In re C.D. provides important guidance on when appellate courts will address technically moot issues under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, particularly in child welfare cases involving the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).

Background and Facts
The Division of Child and Family Services removed Indian children from their grandfather’s custody after finding he had abused them. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether it had appellate jurisdiction to review ICWA compliance issues and whether the Division made adequate active efforts to prevent family breakup. After the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari on these jurisdictional and ICWA compliance questions, the children were placed with their respective biological fathers.

Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary questions: (1) whether the issues became moot after the children’s placement with their fathers, and (2) whether the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied to preserve review of the ICWA compliance and jurisdictional issues.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court held both issues were moot because any judicial relief could not affect the parties’ rights. The children’s fathers held a constitutionally protected right to custody that was not overridden by ICWA. Regarding the public interest exception, while the issues might affect public interest and recur, they failed the third prong because they were not likely to evade review in future litigation. Unlike inherently brief situations such as election code violations, ICWA compliance issues typically provide sufficient time for appellate review before resolution.

Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that the public interest exception requires all three prongs: public interest, likelihood of recurrence, and capability of evading review. Practitioners should carefully assess whether changed circumstances during appeal may render issues moot, and consider whether the brief duration element truly applies to their case type. The court’s refusal to vacate the court of appeals opinion demonstrates that collateral consequences must be shown to justify vacatur in moot cases.